ZTWO vs. LFSC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

ZTWO (F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZTWO is a Short-Term Bond fund tracking the ICE 2-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m. ZTWO is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, ZTWO returned 3.23% vs 86.46% for LFSC. Their 0.15 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. ZTWO charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

ZTWO vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTWO) and F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZTWO achieves a 1.30% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 24.40% return.

ZTWO

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: -0.05%
• 6M: 0.87%
• YTD: 1.30%
• 1Y: 3.23%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.43%

LFSC

• 1D: -2.42%
• 1M: -1.28%
• 6M: 27.81%
• YTD: 24.40%
• 1Y: 86.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 40.92%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	$207.45K	$324.22K	$187.45K
ZTWO F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	$88.61K	$63.37K	$67.56K

ZTWO vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ZTWO F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	1.30%	5.49%	0.36%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	24.40%	56.54%	-1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between ZTWO and LFSC is 0.26, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024	0.15

The correlation between ZTWO and LFSC shifts across timeframes, from 0.15 (all time) to 0.26 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

ZTWO vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ZTWO

ZTWO Risk / Return Rank: 94
ZTWO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
ZTWO Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
ZTWO Omega Ratio Rank: 95
ZTWO Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
ZTWO Martin Ratio Rank: 94

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 94
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 94
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 91

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ZTWO vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTWO) and F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ZTWO	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.67	3.25	-0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.26	4.10	+0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.49	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.92	5.45	-1.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.21	15.35	+2.86

ZTWO vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZTWO Sharpe Ratio is 2.67, which is comparable to the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 3.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZTWO and LFSC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ZTWO vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZTWO drawdown since its inception was -0.93%, smaller than the maximum LFSC drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZTWO and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZTWO	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.93%	-29.74%	+28.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.93%	-16.25%	+15.32%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.12%	-3.85%	+3.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.10%	-7.26%	+7.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.20%	5.76%	-5.56%

Volatility

ZTWO vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTWO) is 0.41%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 9.04%. This indicates that ZTWO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZTWO	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.41%	9.04%	-8.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.09%	19.86%	-18.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.37%	27.28%	-25.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.49%	28.89%	-27.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.49%	28.89%	-27.40%

ZTWO vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZTWO has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZTWO vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

ZTWO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.45%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZTWO F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	4.13%	4.31%	0.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZTWO and LFSC in my portfolio?

ZTWO and LFSC have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ZTWO or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (9.04%) compared to ZTWO (0.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZTWO dropped -0.93% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, ZTWO or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 86.46% vs 3.23% for ZTWO. On fees, ZTWO is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, ZTWO has been the lower-risk option at 0.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZTWO or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 86.46% return vs 3.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZTWO or LFSC?

ZTWO is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ZTWO or LFSC?

ZTWO has the higher dividend yield at 4.13%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between ZTWO and LFSC?

ZTWO is categorized as Short-Term Bond, while LFSC is Health & Biotech Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for ZTWO and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 vs 2.67), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.